It's exactly the same. Nike uses Footlocker's distribution (ie. lots of stores) and pays them 30-45% of the retail price. Apps use the Apple store in the exact same manner. Apple gets 30% for being the storefront.

I think the better wording of the original gripe of google not wanting to pay Apple would be: who in their right mind (who is fully capable of selling stuff online) would want to pay their competitor 30% to do the same thing). My rebuttal to that would be that google needs to pay apple 30% to get access to the other half of the population who does not have an android.

It's exactly the same. Nike uses Footlocker's distribution (ie. lots of stores) and pays them 30-45% of the retail price. Apps use the Apple store in the exact same manner. Apple gets 30% for being the storefront.

I think the better wording of the original gripe of google not wanting to pay Apple would be: who in their right mind (who is fully capable of selling stuff online) would want to pay their competitor 30% to do the same thing). My rebuttal to that would be that google needs to pay apple 30% to get access to the other half of the population who does not have an android.

Except that Google wouldn't be using Apple's distribution, they'd do it on their own. Now if Google gets 30% of what they sell, how is Apple then going to get 30% as well? Where does that 30% percent come from? From the full price? From Google's 30%?

"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX

I thought you couldn’t redirect to your website. So is Apple gonna pull it?

I don't think so because they're not using any Apple resources: it merely links through and the video's get watched over the users Internet connection. End to end, there's no Apple involved. Besides, why was the app approved? Probably because of this reason.

Why even give the enemy a place on your shelf when he wants to beat you? Makes no sense.

Why not? The experience is clunky and inferior. Makes Apple's media store seem like magic. Besides, this makes it easier for people to switch from Android to iOS. iOS users are kinda stuck with their OS unless they want to give up all of the TV shows and movies they bought using iTunes. So, basically it encourages people to switch to iOS while retaining existing customers. Also, Google is in an underdog position right now. It is in their best interest to get their content on as many devices as possible (especially iOS devices given their tendency to purchase more content than Android users). Apple was in a similar position when the iPod first came out. Didn't take them long to make a Windows version of iTunes.

I don't understand why so many seem so belligerent about this product. Personally I appreciate that Apple has made iOS so 'open' to basically all comers. I have and use a variety of apps for reading ebooks on my iPad. Same thing for video content. I was quite happy that there is an app (from Amazon) for viewing Amazon Prime media and, of course, it can be tossed over to Apple TV for viewing on the big screen.

If I have a problem with Apple Maps, I can switch to Google Maps on my iPad with a few quick gestures(and vice versa). This is a feature, not a problem. I'm glad these huge companies are in intense competition. But the only side I choose is the product that works best. Right now that is the iPad (and iPod touch, MacBook Pro, and Apple TV).